United States of America v. Melissa Ray Elders

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-4313
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MELISSA RAY ELDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:23-cr-00257-MOC-DCK-1)
Submitted: February 19, 2026 Decided: February 23, 2026
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Chiege Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth
Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Melissa Ray Elders pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession with
intent to distribute quantities of heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced her to 36 months’
imprisonment. On appeal, Elders’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal
but questioning whether Elders’s sentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
failing to advocate for a probationary sentence. Elders was advised of her right to file a
pro se supplemental brief, but she has not done so. The Government has declined to file a
brief. We affirm.
“[W]e typically review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on collateral
review” but will consider “such claims on direct review where the ineffectiveness of
counsel conclusively appears in the trial record itself.” United States v. Freeman, 24 F.4th
320, 331 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the present
record does not conclusively show that Elders’s counsel rendered ineffective assistance,
we conclude that Elders’s “claim should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.”
United States v. Kemp, 88 F.4th 539, 546 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Elders, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Elders requests that a petition be

-- 2 of 3 --

3
filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move
in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Elders.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --